Working notice — the default under many pieces of employment standards in Canada — can be a way to reduce an organization’s cost of termination of employment. But what happens when an employee quits in response to getting fired before the end of the notice period? And what happens when the working notice isn’t reasonable. The recently decided British Columbia Court of Appeal case of Giza v. Sechelt School Bus Service Ltd., sheds some new light.

Facts
Raymond Giza was a five-year part-time school bus driver for the employer, Sechelt School Bus Service Ltd. He wasn’t subject to an agreement setting out an amount of notice to be given upon termination.

When Canadian employers are buying other businesses, the question of noncompetes often arises. But a noncompetition provision in an employment contract may not be the answer.

According to the Quebec Court of Appeal in Guay Inc. c. Payette, 2011 QCCA 2282, you may be better protected by only having a noncompetition covenant in your sale agreement rather than also including such a clause in your new employees’ employment contracts.

Employers are regularly called upon to modify the workplace or job duties in order to accommodate disabilities. But personal assistive bodily devices haven’t traditionally been part of the accommodation discussion in Canada. This may now be changing, according to a recent arbitration decision.

Teacher requires hearing aids
A teacher struggled with a serious, progressive hearing loss. She bought an analog hearing aid in the early 1990s. Her hearing got worse, and she couldn’t communicate effectively, which of course is an essential part of teaching.

It is commonplace for companies and supervisors across Canada to be charged and convicted with respect to health and safety offenses. But the same doesn’t necessarily hold true for health and safety managers. In R. v. Della Valle,the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia recently convicted and fined a health and safety manager. This individual is now the second health and safety manager to be convicted of an occupational health and safety offense.

Facts
James Edward Della Valle was the occupational health and safety coordinator of the Cape Breton Island Housing Authority, which owns and maintains several housing units. After concerns were raised by an employee, testing was done on vermiculite insulation found in the attics of some of the housing units.

“Cause” for termination is a difficult standard to meet in Canada. So what are your alternatives if you don’t have cause? Warning, suspension, demotion, transfer? In Haddock v. Thrifty Foods (2003) Limited and Quadcam Holdings Ltd., the British Columbia Supreme Court has recently said a demotion may not be a proper response. Further, a warning must be “current” to disentitle an employee to damages.

Employee’s declining performanceThe employee was a grocery store department manager. He had worked his way up to that position over the course of 16 years. For the first 14 years of his employment, he was a good employee. But he started abusing alcohol, resulting in poor performance in the last two years.

Does Canadian law recognize a right to sue somebody for invasion of privacy? In a landmark ruling in Jones v. Tsige, Ontario’s highest court recently said essentially: Yes. In limited circumstances you can sue for “intrusion upon seclusion.” But you won’t have a big payday.

This decision is a very significant development in Canadian law. It has potentially wide-ranging ramifications across many sectors, including in the labor and employment context.

What’s an employer in Canada to do if an employee loses a required qualification? For example, if drivers lose their licenses? If professional employees lose their accreditation? Is there a requirement to provide notice or pay in lieu of notice of termination?

A recent appeal court decision in Ontario suggests that in such cases the contract of employment comes to an end because it has been “frustrated.” There is no requirement to provide any notice of termination or pay in lieu of notice in such circumstances.

Following the earlier lead of many Canadian provinces, the federal government has now outlawed mandatory retirement for federally regulated employers such as banks, telecommunications companies, airlines, and railways.

The court ordered the Quebec Regulator to register pension amendments proposed by the employer and said that absent specific powers, the Quebec Regulator could not arbitrarily refuse to register pension amendments to which affected employees had agreed.